Why don’t you just go digital?

This morning while lamenting a lost roll of film (I’d loaded it wrong and spent several days shooting, well, nothing) Tara said something like “I don’t know why you keep messing with that, why don’t you just go digital? I’m sure you can get the look you want with filters or something” I don’t remember my exact reply but it was something along the lines of “there’s a little more to it than that.”

Which got me thinking, of course.

And now I’m writing about it, of course.

I’ve resisted calling myself a photographer for my whole life for a million reasons, I just like taking pictures. I like documenting things and I like trying to express a feeling in something visual. Writing isn’t that much different honestly, often when I’m writing I’m trying to convey a feeling and choosing the words and structure I think will do that best. With photography, it’s about picking the right moments to capture a feeling. I didn’t realize it had been this long, but 2 years ago I wrote some thoughts about photography in general and touched on the film vs digital issue then. A lot of that still holds true. But today, in 2012, why do I shoot on film?

There’s no simple answer, but a few things play into it.

It’s about the process.
I’ve certainly taken a good number of photos on digital camera, in fact that’s exactly the point. With digital I just snap away. Here’s a shot. There’s a shot. Whatever. I don’t feel invested. Of course I realized this long after the fact, but because digital is so easy to see what you just did, and redo it, or take a ton of photos and later just choose the best one, it doesn’t feel valuable to me. That’s not a projection on any of my friends who shoot exclusively on digital, it’s just for me and for the photos I’m taking, I never felt invested in the digital shots I took. I felt like I was just taking a photo to have it.

When I realized this and started making the transition to film each photo suddenly became precious to me. I didn’t know if it turned out right or not. Should I take a few more just to be safe? Well, I can’t because I only have 36 on this roll, and maybe I’ve already used 10 of them, and maybe there will be something I want to photograph later on before I get to a new roll. I had to think about how I was spending each and every shot. Why do I want to take this photo? Is this a photo I’ve seen a hundred times before and I just want it for myself as well? Is there something here that other people may be interested in? When I look at this photo years from now, will I feel what I’m feeling right now? I never thought about any of those things with digital, and suddenly I think about them all the time. But more importantly, I like the photos I get when I think about them more before I take them, and for better or worse, I think about the photos more when I am restricted by film.

It might take me a month to go through a roll of film. Sometimes a week, but I’m not a “crank out a million shots a day” photographer. I don’t even consider myself a photographer to be honest. I really enjoy taking photos, and I enjoy taking digital photos less.

It’s about the gear.
It’s no surprise that the camera as lust worthy object plays into this decision for me. Well, it’s no surprise to me and is probably not a surprise to anyone who has been following my shenanigans over the years. I fetishize objects, and the craft and care that goes into an objects creation means something to me. At one point in time people made objects because they expected the people who bought them to use them for the rest of the lives. An object like that holds more value, to me, than an object who’s designers knew their creation would be obsolete and trashed in a few years.

I’m also not made of cash, so if something maintains it’s value is a very important thing for me to consider. Digital cameras do not hold their value, in fact they depreciate worse than cars. All digital technology is like that, because things keep progressing. Somethings are necessary, like computers – and you know going into it that your purchase today is going to be worthless a few years from now. Cameras are optional, and if I have the choice of spending money on something that will be obsolete technology-wise and worthless cash-wise in a few years, or something that, baring misuse on my end, be just as functional and worth just as much as today as it will be in 5, 10, 25 years – well, that’s an easy choice.

The camera and lens I’ve been shooting with for the past year were made in the 1960’s, and work just as well as they day they were released, and judging by prices online, have actually increased in value in the last few years. I just swapped out the body for a current production by the same manufacturer – the model they released about 10 years ago. Which is based off of, and barely changed from, the design they released in the 1950’s. There was nothing wrong with the one I traded away from, I just wanted a little more modern functionality – but the camera I have right now I can use for the rest of my life and get results that are technically just as good as the ones I’m getting today. I can probably pass it down to my kid, assuming he gives a shit, and he’ll be able to use it for his whole life. 50 years from today it will be just as functional as it is today. There’s no digital camera that can make that claim.

It’s about the feel.
Shooting on film just feels different than digital. I feel like I’m actually creating something that didn’t exist moments before. I don’t get that feeling shooting on digital, and it’s a feeling I like.

i wish i could afford to process film. it’s damn expensive, especially for b/w, slide film, cross process, etc. i agree it’s something different, but i had to give it up because digital is basically free after you purchase the camera. i don’t buy prints very often, but they’re like a nickel each on walgreens.com.

i’m sure the lab you go to disposes of their chemicals responsibly, but that crap is really harsh. i guess the same could be said of the materials that go into digital stuff too. can’t win!

I have nothing against anyone. I’m not against using film or digital. I’m still learning to use the camera. I have a question. You may find it stupid. What if you restrict yourself to just 36 shots with a digital camera? Will you still feel the same way when you take pictures?

Two observations, one “for” and one “against”:
limitations force us to be creative. It may seem counterintuitive to some, but it works. When you’re talking about art, or just what you enjoy, efficiency isn’t always a virtue.
Second, my cheap digital camera worked great for years until it fell in a lake. Bonus: the SD card was fine when we fished it out. My old computer might have little resale value, but it runs add well today as when I bought it in 2007, and I see no reason why I won’t get another 5 years or more out of it, unless something way better gets way cheaper, which is actually pretty likely. Don’t kid yourself that it’s somehow about being frugal: unless you’re restoring and reselling these cameras instead of using film in them, you’re losing money compared to digital. Good thing it’s not just about money, but something a little less concrete and more meaningful to you.

Oh, and Keefe, you should stock up on those 56 MB SD cards while they’re still available.let us know how it goes.

Oh just so it’s clear: I think it’s cool that you’re into film and film cameras, but I thought one of your supporting arguments was invalid. Not that it’s really a thing that can truly be argued one way or the other. I think that’s sort of the point.
Also I enjoy your photographs, and they’re better than the stuff I take on my new cheap crappy digital camera, maybe for some of the reasons you gave. Keep it up

Zack – We seem to disagree on what useful means. Sure your 2007 computer may still work in 5 years, and will do things it could do 10 years prior – which will be subpar in the world of 2017. I have a digital camera that I got in 1998 – it still “works” but it’s useless by todays standards and most cell phones take better photos. I’ve never gotten more than 3 years life out of a computer, because I’m constantly pushing the limits it’s built for to begin with. I know people who still use computers they bought in 1995 and are happy with them, but all they do is answer email and have never seen a video on the web.

Sean: I’m not buying it. Sure, I’d be happy enough with a newer, more powerful computer, but since I’d generally rather be reading blogs (like yours) than playing games or watching movies (which I can do and have done on this machine), my low resolution screen and weak processor don’t bother me. My computer does the things I need it to, and it hasn’t gotten slower or my needs gotten greater just because there’s a newer, shinier computer for sale out there somewhere — much like your film camera isn’t affected by the existence of (digital) cameras that can do a thousand nifty things that your camera cannot. You need 4g FaceBook uploading on your camera like I need Skyrim on my computer.
Anyway, the “value” I had in mind in that comment was strictly financial, and all I’m really saying is that you’re probably not actually saving money by choosing film over digital. Taking better photos and enjoying the process more? Apparently so; more power to you. Saving money? Not so much.

Keefe: Oh, I just meant that if you got low-density SD cards that could store only a limited number of pictures, it might help give you the sense of limitation that you’re interested in. It was just an offhand comment.

Zach – Again your problem is a different level of understanding. A computer made today works, by all measures, better than a computer that was made 10 years ago. A digital camera made today works, by all measures, better than a digital camera made 10 years ago. A film camera made today, works EXACTLY THE SAME as a film camera made 10 years ago. Made 20 years ago. Made 30 years ago. And if you strip out things like autofocus and AE which many people don’t care about, they work the same as film cameras made 60 – 80 years ago. And produce the same results.

The results you get from a digital camera made 10 years ago are worthless in todays world, and nothing compared to the results you get from a digital camera made today. the results you get from a film camera made 10 years ago are every bit as good as any film camera made ever, and by simply scanning in a negative, produce results just as good as any digital camera ever.

For my work, it’s important to have current computers so I write off throwing away money every 2-3 years to buy a new computer. As a hobbyist, a non-professional, I don’t see the benefit of doing that with digital cameras when the results I get on my film camera are just as good as any digital camera on the market today.

Nice post, definitely. You’ve touched on quite a number of well known points – and personally I cannot express how important limitations and self-vision are to creating good art.

Shooting with film relies on internal instinct in the photography process – one has to see, trust that they’re seeing correctly, and commit to it – shutter fired, advance. Most digital people shoot a bunch (or worse, one), then review their shots – setting up the internal feedback loop of trying to hit some imaginary target of “good photograph.” But at the same time they’re burning themselves with this training-wheel style of photography and unless one just turns off the LCD or covers it with tape, it’ll continue – even at a subtle level. Most people don’t care about this – but most people are not interested in inspired photographs that actually have depth in subject matter – they just want pretty pictures or content with crap.

Another important point: non-linearity and analog saturation. The digital crowd conveniently ignores this one on a consistent basis – usually wrapping themselves up in narrow-minded sharpness and resolution battles (you’ll see a common trend here in their thinking) of various sensors vs emulsions. However, with almost all digital technology (and *not* just camera sensors) there is no appropriate or organic handling of input saturation or non-linear response to the extremes of signal – be it sound, light, etc. This is highly important – because it results in film having an intrinsic “compressor” that’s pleasing to the eye. “Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights” isn’t just parrot-talk, it’s a mantra that takes advantage of the medium. Digital does not do this – and it does not have a relationship with light in the same way that silver does. Yet another creative angle that film offers, even well known photographers like Ralph Gibson who take advantage of it by over-exposing and over-developing to compress the range and bring out a sea of texture.

Why would I want to sit behind a computer and mimic this in software? It’s much more fulfilling to develop a relationship with the medium and let it work with me, when I’m on, and provide happy accidents or sometimes downright lake-of-fire payback for not being on or paying attention.

Digital is candy photography – no real investment with limited range for creativity within the materials used (a brickwall linear sensor). Additionally the manufacturers absolutely love it. It’s the perfect setup for the technology-driven buy-use-dispose money train. Those who’ve been enlightened have already got off the train.

PS: Always keep the rewind lever open after reload. It’s not strictly necessary to sit and watch the film wind on in an M, the bottom plate will help ensure this. The rewind lever is insurance – as if it’s not moving by the 2nd or 3rd frame the film isn’t spooled. I usually rewind out slack after loading and advancing just one frame, that way it’s quicker to see it moving by the 2nd frame.

Zac, I too do not subscribe to FB’s actions. I have worked at major computer companies for over 40 yrs and I don’t trust any social media company. The main objective is never as it appears. The ONLY objective with EVERY company is to obtain a customer list. That has ALWAYS been the objective. But in business, it is necessary as it is another revenue stream. Money, not you, is the goal. It doesn’t matter whether it is selling cucumbers or gold. Every business must, and, always have had to place where revenue comes from, whether it is to obtain a loan, pay taxes, or even liquidate a company. Money is the objective and is necessary to show how well a company is doing. That IS the function of selling your info to whomever. If it treads over your privacy, then continue on in severing the ties. If not, just don’t type ANYTHING that you think might affect your privacy.

Film and digital are sufficiently different – and produce sufficiently different results – to make them both viable and enjoyable. My “preference” is for film – probably understandable as I’be been using it since the early 1970s but I enjoy the immediacy of feedback that digital allows and the opportunity to retake a shot that hasn’t quite worked first time.

Incidentally, there’s no compulsion to shoot digital like a machine-gunner. I adopt the 36 on a roll approach no matter what I’m shooting unless, of course it’s 120 roll film or my 5×4…

“Humidity and darkness are very important elements in photography, so you have to be careful with digital cameras because they sort of kill those elements, I say. I, too, use them, sort of recording things in everyday life for fun, though.

Photography needs to be sentimental. That dry brightness that digital cameras create, that’s not sentimental at all. Colors created with the three primary colors have a very simple impact, but there’s a melancholy at the same time. Colors don’t turn out the way you want them to be, that’s what so good about them.

Perfect colors are not to be researched like that. For example, red. Red of the first menstrual period. The red sky during war. Vague reds and seeping red. The perfect red is different in everyone.

Digital cameras easily ignore those sorts of delicate senses and feelings of Japanese coloring. To be extreme, you look at black and say, it’s red. That’s art. Creating ripples among people is what art does and its the density of art, but before that, you have to feel the ripple in yourself.

It’s not exciting because there are stupid guys that ignore that, trying to figure out how to create real colors. They say, ‘If you use this digital camera, you can take a clear picture in the dark’. The dark should stay dark. You can’t really see that much, and you don’t really want to see that much anyway.”

With film, at the end after development you have something in your hand. When putting it (= negatives) in an archival sleeve you do not have to bother about it for the next 50-100 years.
Analogue photography is also more relaxed. How bigger your format is, how better you will look. I do not feel restricted by 36 exposures because I always have enough film with me. And when developing (B&W or C41) yourself it’s a fraction of the regular prices. Developing your own film is not “rocket science” at all.
I am also printing my own films in B&W and RA-4. Nothing is more beautiful to take out a nice 40x50cm photo from the Jobo paper drum.

May I say a word or two? I got my first “real camera” a leica M2 in 1965 (!!). I learned to develop the negatives in three simple steps with metal spirals.(developer, fix, wash). Later on I bought more cameras, even more leicas but the workflow is still the same: load the bulk 35mm flm in a casette, shoot it, develop it and edit the results, scan the best frames and store the negatives in sleeves with date and code ( subject description). When I have the time and inspiration, I make large prints of the best ones . The negatives are there, propably for 50 years, still and the cameras too.To me the film is like a musical instrument: It is the same, only the performance and execution of different persons make the difference.

Lovely post, Sean. I really enjoyed your thoughts prompted by Tara’s comment. I particularly agree with you about the process. For me, it’s more meaningful. I’m more engaged with my subject and the moment. I click the shutter and the moment is gone (until I develop the film and I get to relive it all again – especially love those amazing shots that you had forgot about). I don’t feel the need to look at the camera LCD screen or analyze the shot. I’m onto the next shot.

I also understand your point with Zack (and understand where he is coming from as well). I shoot with a beat up old Toyo 4×5 field camera. It’s ugly, it’s heavy, it’s got peeling paint. It’s been dropped and abused. It’s been in the water, rained on, and defiled in so many ways. Yet this old camera, that I bought used, takes pictures exactly like it did on its first day in the field. And since it’s a large format film camera, it still blows away any digital output. It cost me $600 used. And when I’m using my Toyo here in the city, it never fails to attract people who want to talk about it, ask questions, or look though the huge ground glass. You can see the wonder that photography still is to them.

My Hasselblad is over 20 years old. It’s also beat up with peeling paint. It takes pictures exactly like it did on its first day in the field or studio. I bought it used. And if I wanted to sell it now (never would), I would double my investment easily. I’ve never seen a DSLR that could match this camera, but I would love to see it one day and at a pice I could afford.

With digital cameras I’m always looking to upgrade. The camera companies have many of us believing that you must upgrade. I stopped that silly game with a Nikon D90. It’s perfect for how I use it, which is hardly at all.

Keep up the good work. I’m glad I discovered your blog through Twitter.

@Olivier …still you can play with digital filters on your computer in a dark room. lol.

Anyway. I believe that saving time and money is the ultimate reason for going digital.

For example, I can shoot a wedding digitally, get them loaded on the computer the same night, cull and email a couple hundred of them off to my editors. Have them back within two days. Print/Package them and have them to the couple that same week. Couples expect hundreds of photos from their big day (what they do with it, who knows).

How long does it take to do that with film again? The money I spend using my editors is a drop in the bucket compared to the money it would take to process that much film, and let’s not talk about the time it would take.

I see using film as more of an artistic process. If I am doing portraits for a new photobook, then film would make me feel more invested in the art creation process. The whole, ” I wonder how this shot came out” feeling is exhilarating. Still, that’s about it, a fun experience.

When all we had was film, then we need to invest the time and money. Now digital saves that time and money and is just more practical (depending on your usage).

I didn’t get a digital camera until 2007 and once the ‘i can shoot a billion pictures for almost nothing’ feeling wore off, I went to shooting both film and digital but with a different attitude. I’m more thoughtful about the way I want a picture to look before I hit the shutter, I think more about if I really even want the picture and I notice when I shoot film or digital, I take fewer picture both ways.

I’ve not read all the comments but I have great sympathy with Sean. I think film and digital are different media. Sometimes that difference is subtle, sometimes it’s really vivid. I take different pictures with my old medium format than I do with my digital and my tiny Olympus XA…and my iPhone! Different brushes, different canvases, different subjects, different moments….why shouldn’t one stick to the one medum that chimes the most? (You can tell I’m more that a little more promiscuous….)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name*

Email*

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Learn More)

Hi, I’m Sean Bonner

I recently moved to Tokyo after 17 years in Los Angeles. I’ve run hackerspaces and blog networks, an art gallery, design firm and a record label. I’m one of the co-founders of Safecast, and currently act as Global Director. I’m an Associate Professor at Keio University, a Shuttleworth Fellow, an MIT researcher and sit on the board of CicLAvia.